schools

imported post

i have been reading alot of post about school zones.and i was wondering is there a law in missouri about how many feet you can oc near a school as i leave across the street from a school the school property line is about a hundred feet from mine,so am i breaking the law by leaving my property to go for a walk,im in st.joe mo.

imported post

Dang...74 post, Welcome.

Your good if you don't go on the property. 571.030 Please save these twolinks to your favorites. http://www.ci.st-joseph.mo.us/clerk/code.cfm

imported post

Dang I wish I would have known this yesterday, but I'm glad I do now.

imported post

Hey Gunman, just thought I'd add a little bit to the topic...

Shawn was very correct to refer you to the St. Joe's Ordinance and the Revised Missouri Statutes section, but Iwanted to make sure and also mention that there isa Federallaw regarding firearms and schools. The Federal law is US CODE>Title 18>Part I>CHAPTER 44> §922(q) (2)

(A)It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

What's interesting here is the phrase, "...that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce...".As we all know, congress has the power to pass laws that directly affect interstate commerce as it is an enumerated powerin the US Constitution. In the original wording of the law barring firearms in school zones, there was no suchphrase.

In United States v. Morrison,the Supreme Courtfound that congress exceeded it's authorityin passing a law regarding firearms in school zones, as it did notdemonstrate thatit was an issueof interstate commerce. Congress later re-enacted the law by adding the aforementioned clause and text correcting the technical defect that rendered it unconstitutional. As the law stands now, it placesthe burdenona prosecutorto provean additional element: that the firearm has moved or affected interstate commerce.

Important to mention, though, is that there are exemptions to both the Missouri law and the Federal Law in the form ofa CCW.

The Missouri exception is found in Chapter 571-030, further down from the prohibited actions:

4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

The Federal exemption is found in the next subdivision following the prohibited action:

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm-

(i) on private property not part of school grounds,

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license,

For reference, hereis the link to thesection of US Code since Shawn already posted the MO statute...hope this helps and happy carrying!

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

imported post

Aristodemus wrote:

Hey Gunman, just thought I'd add a little bit to the topic...

Shawn was very correct to refer you to the St. Joe's Ordinance and the Revised Missouri Statutes section, but Iwanted to make sure and also mention that there isa Federallaw regarding firearms and schools. The Federal law is US CODE>Title 18>Part I>CHAPTER 44> §922(q) (2)

(A)It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

What's interesting here is the phrase, "...that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce...".As we all know, congress has the power to pass laws that directly affect interstate commerce as it is an enumerated powerin the US Constitution. In the original wording of the law barring firearms in school zones, there was no suchphrase.

In United States v. Morrison,the Supreme Courtfound that congress exceeded it's authorityin passing a law regarding firearms in school zones, as it did notdemonstrate thatit was an issueof interstate commerce. Congress later re-enacted the law by adding the aforementioned clause and text correcting the technical defect that rendered it unconstitutional. As the law stands now, it placesthe burdenona prosecutorto provean additional element: that the firearm has moved or affected interstate commerce.

Important to mention, though, is that there are exemptions to both the Missouri law and the Federal Law in the form ofa CCW.

The Missouri exception is found in Chapter 571-030, further down from the prohibited actions:

4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

The Federal exemption is found in the next subdivision following the prohibited action:

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm-

(i) on private property not part of school grounds,

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license,

For reference, hereis the link to thesection of US Code since Shawn already posted the MO statute...hope this helps and happy carrying!

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

Click to expand...

Aristodemus,

This is a good post. Welcome on board.

I just posted on Missouricarry, these two cases, when talking about the FFA's that are popping up across the country. I doubt we will ever see somebody arrested under thisfederal statue. I also wanted to post some links for others to read and give an opinion on this topic.

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON was about the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. §13981, which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.

UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ was about the constitutionality of Section 922(q). Now, 922(q)was updated in 1994, before the court issued their opinion in 1995. see footnote 4.

The twoissues inLopez.

1. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms

2. Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce. This section fixed in 1994, but does not fix the other issue #1.

Most importantly, since Heller and soon McDonald, schools will still be off limits, under the second amendment,unless allowed by state law.

The CCW law inMO, will allow you to carry ON school property, as you pointed out and only a MO CCW,gives an exemption to the 1000' rule, as defined in the federal law as school property.

Now the question again, was OC off of school property. You don't need a ccw to OC off school property in Missouri and 922(q) was and still is unconstitutional, according to the standard set out in Lopez. Plus, after McDonald, 2nd kicks in for additional protection off school property.

I think your post on everybody getting a CCW (only a Missouri permit will meet922(q)(2)(ii)) to make sure they are clear of 922(q) is good advice.

I personally don't have a permit.

Nothing in this post is legal advice, just good conversation.

imported post

thanks for all the info while i do have a ccw i decided to open carry a little over a year ago when i found out it was legal here. its not very popular here as i never see anyone else doing it,i get alot of questions about me ocing and there are a lot of places around here that dont like it,one of our walmarts wont even let me in the door i have to cc when i go there,even my favorite fast food place put up a no weapons sign,i just wish it was more common here,but im trying.thanks again,im still learning all the ins and outs

imported post

Shawn wrote:

Aristodemus,

This is a good post. Welcome on board.

I just posted on Missouricarry, these two cases, when talking about the FFA's that are popping up across the country. I doubt we will ever see somebody arrested under thisfederal statue. I also wanted to post some links for others to read and give an opinion on this topic.

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON was about the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. §13981, which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.

UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ was about the constitutionality of Section 922(q). Now, 922(q)was updated in 1994, before the court issued their opinion in 1995. see footnote 4.

The twoissues inLopez.

1. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms

2. Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce. This section fixed in 1994, but does not fix the other issue #1.

Most importantly, since Heller and soon McDonald, schools will still be off limits, under the second amendment,unless allowed by state law.

The CCW law inMO, will allow you to carry ON school property, as you pointed out and only a MO CCW,gives an exemption to the 1000' rule, as defined in the federal law as school property.

Now the question again, was OC off of school property. You don't need a ccw to OC off school property in Missouri and 922(q) was and still is unconstitutional, according to the standard set out in Lopez. Plus, after McDonald, 2nd kicks in for additional protection off school property.

I think your post on everybody getting a CCW (only a Missouri permit will meet922(q)(2)(ii)) to make sure they are clear of 922(q) is good advice.

I personally don't have a permit.

Nothing in this post is legal advice, just good conversation.

Click to expand...

Shawn, excellent post as well! Thank you too for the warm welcome.

First, thank you for catching my mistake referencing Morrison instead of Lopez...I stand corrected! Morrison was alater case that, like Lopez,limited Congress's power under the interstate commerce clause (I'm convinced the more you read case law, the more the names become interchangeable).

Also, good job clarifying to everyone that in Missouri,ONLY aMissouri CCW permit provides for the exception, as the exception is only extended to those who have a permit issued to them by the same state in which the school resides.

Addressing the two issues in Lopez...

The Supreme Court decision in United Statesv. Lopez in1995 made unconstitutional the original wording of section 922, which was enacted in 1990. It remained unconstitutional until September 30, 1996 when Congressreenacted the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act inP.L. 104-208, adding the phrase andchanging sometext as I mentioned in my previous post. As it stands now, the act IS constitutional because itnow requires the government to prove an additional element, that the firearm affected interstate commerce.

As I understand it, the reenactment of the law by Congress wasbasically a nod to the authoritative power of the Supreme Courtbut, more than anything, was meant to show that Congress doesn't approve of firearms in school zones and they believe it's a major problem. That being said...Do I thinkthe law isenforceable as is? Maybe, at best, but not likely given the added burden of proving it somehow affected interstate commerce.

Also, the original question ifI remember it correctly, was regarding OC on private property near a school but, specifically, if he would be breaking the lawif he decided to leave the property to go for a walk.Given that last part,I feltthat this lawwas worth at least mentioning (To answer the question gunman, only if you traverse school property and/or somehow manage to affect interstate commerce while doing so).

You're right about the most recent court cases though...it'll be interesting to see how thingschange once this new precedent is set and some laws become unenforceable as well as what new ones will be enacted.

Also, since you mentioned it, Iwould encourage those OC'ers who are eligibleto get a CCW permit to do so.With a CCW younot only have the option to CC but you have an added layer of protectionand, many times, anexemption fromgeneral municipal laws prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons.

For everyone’s benefit, here's the link to P.L. 104-208:

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/pl104_208.pdf

SECTION 657 (starting at the bottom of page 370) is the section of interest.

Good conversation indeed!

imported post

Great information, links and references guys. Thanks!

imported post

here is my input on the school coments.... the gun free school zone act of 1990 has added 2 new paragraphs in a new section (q) to section 922 of the title 18 of the U.S. code. on number 1 it says near the end that people who have a permit by the state can carry in and near schools but must have a ( concealed carry,weapons or firearms permit)

please do not take my word for it but do look it up and see what you think